“Lethal To The Faith”: Benedict on… Francis

Lethal to the Faith

Lethal to the Faith

The Pontiff Emeritus has sent a message to the Pontifical University Urbaniana. This intervention, a 1700-word-long little essay, is one of the most important interventions made from him since his abdication. Text, as always, on Rorate
 
Pope Emeritus Benedict is too gentle, too diplomatic, and too smart to openly contradict his successor. But all those who have acquired, in their existence, the ability to both read and think about the meaning of what they have read will very well understand that what Benedict says goes frontally against Francis’ very frame of mind.
 
This Benedict here cannot be read through Francis, at all.
 
I am now eagerly awaiting for the Pontiff Emeritus’ confirmation that no, he did not want to attack the Pope, whom he considers such a wonderful blabla, bla and also bla. But as always, scripta manent; and as always, such denials are just another confirmation that the world has read this document, and has understood it exactly for what it means.
 
—-
 
Coming to the paper itself, it is, as always by Benedict, very rich and profound; and as always, the difference in intellectual stature between Benedict and Francis is extremely embarrassing for the latter. Among the many topics touched, there are two (one positive, and one negative) that I would like to isolate. All emphases mine. 
 
The first is to do with the evangelisation as opposed to the “no!no! no!” mentality of Francis   
Is this mission really possible in the world as it is today? Would it not be more appropriate that all religions get together and work together for the cause of peace in the world? The counter-question is: Can dialogue substitute for mission? Today many have the idea, in effect, that religions should respect each other, and, in dialogue with each other, become a common force for peace. In this way of thinking, most times there is a presupposition that the various religions are variants of one and the same reality; that “religion” is a category common to all, which assumes different forms according to different cultures, but expresses, however, one and the same reality. The question of truth, which at the beginning of Christianity moved Christians more than anything else, in this mode of thinking is placed within parentheses. It presupposes that the authentic truth about God, in the last analysis, is unobtainable, and that at best one can make present what is ineffable only with a variety of symbols. This renunciation of truth seems convincing and useful for peace among the religions of the world.

This is, however, lethal to faith. In fact, faith loses its binding character and seriousness, if everything is reduced to symbols that are at the end interchangeable, capable of referring only from afar to the inaccessible mystery of the divine.

Stop beating around the bush now: this is an indictment of Francis’ papacy, at least as far as his non-ecumenism is concerned. Benedict is saying, klipp und klar, that Francis’ quest for peace goes at the expense of Truth. Which is obvious, considering the man does not believe in God, much less Truth. 

Francis is, Benedict says without mentioning him by name, lethal to faith. 

Yes, of course he will deny he was attacking Francis. No! God forbid! Perish the thought! He was merely saying the Truth. Can it be the poor man’s fault that every time someone says the Truth this is clearly in opposition to what Francis says?

The second point is to do with the matter of salvation.

This point is,alas, a negative one; and here, yours truly must alert his readers to the fact that Benedict himself has, and always had, the V II bacillus.

 

Let me take this example:  

Love demands to be communicated. Truth demands to be communicated. Whoever has experienced great joy cannot keep it simply for himself. He must pass it on to others. The same thing is true for the gift of love, through the gift of recognizing the truth that manifests itself.

When Andrew met Christ, he could not do anything but say to his brother: “We have found the Messiah” (John 1:41). And Philip, who was also given the gift of this encounter, could not do anything but to say to Nathaniel that he had found him of whom Moses and the Prophets had written (John 1:45). We proclaim Jesus Christ not to get as many members as possible for our community, and least of all for the sake of power. We speak of Him because we feel that we have to share that joy with others that has been given to us.

We will be credible proclaimers of Jesus Christ when we have encountered him in the depths of our existence, when, within the encounter with Him, we are given the great experience of truth, of love, and of joy.

We see here more of that sugary “religion of joy” that has been such a part of Catholic apologetics in the V II era. This is, so to speak, half way down a slippery slope, at the end of which Francis is awaiting.  

The Pontiff Emeritus describes not only Faith, but the reason for his propagation, as a matter of joy. You find the joy, you must share it. 

But this is simply beside the point. The reason for evangelisation is the salvation of souls. Evangelisation is not primarily about what we get in this life, but what we get (in positive or negative) in the next. The question is salvation or damnation, not a joyful life in Christ or a joyless one without him. Christianity is first, second, third and thirtieth about the next life, not this one.

Whilst Benedict always links truth and joy, he never goes to the heart of the matter. Words like “judgment”, “hell”, “damnation” do not occur once in 1700 words. Salvation and damnation here are not even an afterthought, they are simply nowhere. How can you evangelise without thinking of damnation? What is this religion, an organisation sending around many Dulcamaras selling their “elixir of joy”?

This is tofu evangelisation in the best V II tradition; an evangelisation which, whilst orthodox in principle and well-intentioned, is left deprived of a solid foundation or, better said, of the eternal foundation given to it by Our Lord:

 “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned”

Note the words here: “saved” and “condemned”, not “joyful” and “joyless”. 

Francis is lethal to the faith. But Benedict is, like all of V II, a very ineffectual help to it.

——-

Still: I am very glad the Pontiff Emeritus decided to intervene. It was high time. Now there will be a predictable storm, and the predictable visit of the two, with photo-ops, biscuits and tea. But the substance remains:

Francis is lethal to the faith.  

Mundabor

Reblog: “God Of Surprises”, Take One.

Meet Francis, The Presbyterian Pope. 

Francis’ “God Of Surprises” Is A God Of Blasphemy And Heresy

Francis' god.

Francis’ god.

 

The way in which this heretical nonsense of the “god of surprises” has been swallowed by the obedient Pollyannas is a very good indication of the decay of Christian thinking among people who tell themselves Catholics, and of the inability to even understand that this disgraceful Pope is indicating to them the perfect path to hell.

As so very much that Francis keeps saying, these words contain some emotional appeal meant to please the stupid; as if God’s Law were a vegetable, for which “freshness” is a quality attribute.

The contrary is the case.

Our God is a God of no surprises. Being perfect, he is unchangeable. Being unchangeable, He can never have anything new in Him.

This principle, of the unchangeable God, is what provides the basis for the unchangeable Truth of which God’s immutability is at the same time the reason and the guarantee. As God can never change, so can Truth never change. He, and it, will remain always the same, world without end.

Were it not so, God would not be God. Were it not so, there would be no God.

Truth is forever. God Himself assures us that this is so, and that there will no surprises. Produce has a selling window before it becomes stale. The Truth, the Way and the Life haven’t. And if an angel – much less a clown – should come down from heaven and tell us: “God has decided to surprise you!” we.would.not.believe.him.

Francis obfuscates and mystifies. His supermarket-jargon hides one and only one intent: the subversion of God’s law into something “surprising” and, by the very definition of the word, both unexpected and different.

This is another definition of heresy.

Let those who feel so inclined blindly follow the Pope in the pit of heresy and blasphemy he wants to lead them. A faithless Pope will only be followed by faithless people, or by people so stupid – and culpably so – that they are ready to ditch an unchangeable Truth for the produce section of Francis’ satanic supermarket.

We live in times that are so stupid that these cheap appeals to – nay: cheap papal ads of – novelty and freshness are applied to what is Immutable and Unchangeable by the very definition of the word.

And please, *please* do not even *try* to justify the Pope’s words with some fluffy commentary along the lines that Francis refers to an “ever new joy”, and such like nonsense. If you still have not understood what kind of “surprise” Francis has in store for you, the smell of reprobation is strong in you, and you should be very worried by now.

Francis’ “god of surprises” is a god of heresy and blasphemy. It can’t be the God of the Christians. It is some strange New Age fantasy creature.

Our God is a God of no surprises. Do not blaspheme Him by making of Him the same as Francis’ strange, fantasy creature.

Mundabor

 

 

Let Us Not Be Afraid Of The “H” Word!

The picture of this Papacy.

I never tire to repeat that the misguided and deluded “sensitivity” of a world obsessed with “niceness” (“you brood of vipers!” How nice is that?) is what made the advance of the sodomites possible in the first place.

Words are weapons. A powerful barrage of clear, unmistakeable condemnation will always have a devastating effect of the enemy troops. It is only when the defences are down and the enemy is suddenly treated with respect, “sensitivity”, and even reverence that his advance is not only made possible, but helped every step of the way; helped in his march of conquest, in fact, by the very sissified army that should actually shoot at him.

If you want to fight sexual perversion, you must call it with its own name. If you do not dare to call it with its own name, you do not really want to fight it.

The same peril looms in the aftermath of the Synod. The heretics and perverts will now try to start the Great Sensitivity Offensive. Words like “sinner” and “adulterer” will be decried as offensive, inappropriate, unworthy of a decent Catholic. Most of all, a word will be kept as far away from the public discourse as possible: heresy.

Like the word “sodomy”, the word “heresy” says it all; they both express not only the strongest condemnation, but the fact that this condemnation is deeply rooted in Christianity. Both words have on heretics and perverts the same effect Holy Water has on the devil.

In the next twelve months, a great opportunity is given to us: use the momentum – and the moment of lucidity – created by the Synod to expose in the clearest possible terms what we see around us: blank Heresy, propagated every day in our midst from Bishops, Cardinals and a Pope with no faith or shame.

This theme must be hammered in the ears of the faithful incessantly, because most of them still oppose some resistance in acknowledging what is, after the Synod, entirely evident: that the Pope has heavily and shamelessly steered this Synod toward blatant heresy: not only leading the charge against two Sacraments, but openly espousing Modernism as he publicly declared that God’s laws can be changed.

The Pope is a material heretic. So are all of his helpers. Francis has remote-controlled them in such an open way – the public support for Kasper’s “serene and profound” heresy “on one’s knees”, and the appointment of the Six Little Pigs to draft the Relatio, are only two of the most blatant – that no one in possession of a sound Catholic reason can avoid seeing it.

We must make the “H” word heard, and make it heard often. We must go to the 2015 Synod after a twelve-month barrage on the very real dangers of such exercises as long as one like Francis smears the throne of Peter. We must follow and challenge the heretical statements of him and his minions. We must educate the common Catholic to the sad reality of a material heretic as Pope, and explain to them that this is not only a perfectly legitimate possibility, but something already occurred in the past. We must do what it take to make the perception of a grave crisis caused by a shameless Pope as mainstream as we can. We must hit this godless man in what he loves most: unchallenged popularity, and adoration of the masses.

Let Catholics boo him, as atheists and perverts celebrate him. See how he likes it. It is sheer suicide, and he knows it very well.

The widespread perception of an attack on Christ, led by the Pope, is the best guarantee that in twelve months’ time (unless the Lord makes us the grace of ridding us of him beforehand) a solid wall of bishops – inside and outside of the Leonine Walls – will stop and destroy any attempt at perverting the Truth Christ gave us. We must use these months to prepare the ground well, because there is no saying what stupid things might be at least attempted if we don’t.

We must help the orthodox bishops to create such a climate that in twelve months’ time abominations like the one of Bishop “Faggot” Forte will not be even thought of. We must expose the heresy now, or run the risk of having it dished to us before very long as an official Church document. We must give strength to the hand of those who want to strike down heresy, and encourage them to hit hard.

Do not be afraid of the “H” word.

M

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What Socci Does Not Say

Originally posted on Mundabor's Blog:

Not so easy after all...

Not so easy after all…

If you have not done so already, you may do much worse than visit Rorate Caeli and read there the excellent translation of the article from Antonio Socci appeared on Libero some days ago.

Socci says many very useful things, and he says them very well. He quotes figures, and the figures alone tell you everything you need to know about the real causes of the shameless persecution of the FFI. 

V II is bankrupt. The persecution of the FFI is the necessary step to avoid the bankruptcy becoming too public. Others will follow. If I were a FSSP priest, I wouldn’t sleep very well right now. Only the SSPX, with his presence and courageous witness for sound Catholicism, prevents the total annihilation of every conservative stream within the Church.

Still, this blog post is not about what Socci says. It is about what Socci…

View original 405 more words

“The Remnant” Video: The Comment

This is one in the fray...

This is one in the fray…

I have already published a post about this wonderful video.

I invite everyone who has not done it to view it first.

There are several points in this video, of which one is the main one and others are added considerations. First the added considerations.

1. Bill Donohue was very wrong (actually: factually very wrong) in downplaying as “leak” something that was officially announced and the official “preparatory” document of the 2014 synod.  This downplays the gravity of the entire matter, and lulls Catholics into thinking reality is what our wishes make of it. I have dealt with the matter here

2. Pat Buchanan (a Catholic, I think) had a wonderful column about the fact that this Pope is leaning so far out of the window, that a vacant sea is not inconceivable anymore. I enjoyed the column a lot (web search engines may help you to find it) but did not find the time to write about it.

3. Astonishingly, there seem to be Catholic broadcasters (here is, clearly, meant Michael Voris) who feel ashamed even of reporting opposition to the Pope. Burke’s criticism of the Pope’s stance is, if not personal, very strong, and deservedly so. 

4. There have been “wayward” Popes in history. Heck, there have been heretical Popes in history! The names should be circulated more: Honorius, Liberius and John XXII are three safe candidates; Formosus ( I add) is a probable fourth one. I wish I could find again the sources about other Popes, but these four here seem to be the biggest. Before Francis, that is. We must spread the word and say this out loud, because in the modern clericalist atmosphere filled with ignorance and feel-goodism, most would fear their religion will crumble if they ever admit the Pope is wrong, or a heretic. 

Cardinal Piacenza also spoke (though very late...)

Cardinal Piacenza also spoke (though very late…)

5. There have been paragraphs in the definitive Relatio Synodi, which are very bad. Are we desensitising ourselves to them, particularly to sexual perversion? 

Personally, I think not. I found many paragraphs bad, but merely “V II-bad”, not “Francis-bad”. The new paragraph about perverts merely says that homosexuals (homosexuals, not sodomites; we are talking here of the perversion, not the sodomy or even the active militancy!) must not be discriminated against. This is not only the same tone of the JP II catechism (actually, it is indicative that the paragraph has apparently been rejected by the bishops; it tells you what many of them would do with JP II’s catechism if they had a choice), but can only be approved of if it is read with the mind of the actual sound catholic, rather than of the rabid liberal.

Not even I (and you know what kind of “welcoming” chap I am) would refuse to sell to an homosexual the means to stay alive ( I do not say a “wedding cake”, which is an obvious statement; but bread, milk, tomato, mozzarella, and the like…); nor would I, if I were an employer at, say, the Land Registry, refuse employment to a poor chap because I suspect he  has a perversion. Homosexuals must eat too, and provided they do not give scandal and behave in the proper way I think they have the right not to be starved. I do not think this is anything new, and it is not known to me that homosexuals in the Papal States were refused bread, or wine, or a tenancy, if they did not give scandal. This would have been considered, even then, unjust discrimination.

… and even the Pontiff Emeritus had to intervene…

 

The reasons why the bishops have refused to approve it was, I think, to give an additional slap to Francis, saying to him “you wanted to ram heresy down our throat, now you get slapped in the face even for things we could otherwise approve without problems”;  and also – an issue I, in my innocence, had not examined – to avoid that even these words may be mis-construed as something different: then the very same words may be made to mean, in the Age of Mercy, something completely different than in the old Age of Catholicism.

 

—-

All this, though, is accessory. The main issue is another, that is: 

1. that the Pope read and approved the text of the relatio post disceptationem on the Saturday before the publication; 

2. that, therefore, all the heresies therein contained can be traced back to him;  

3. that the Pope has acted like an Oriental Satrap in disrespecting his bishops at every step: putting in charge a cabal of ultra-liberal, silencing the bishops so that the world does not see orthodoxy at work, publishing a text the bishops had not approved, (imposing the Six Little Pigs to draft the final version, I add);  imposing the publication of the preliminary report (which is on the internet anyway), and finally imposing the publication of the final text (the Relatio Synodi) including those paragraphs explicitly not approved by the required majority. 

4. that Burke, Chaput, Mueller & Co. are saying, with thinly veiled words, that the Pope was behind all this, and the Pope was the one who wanted to weak the discipline of the Church in matters of sexual morality. That Cardinal Pell meant, when he said that the Synod was being manipulated, exactly that the Pope was manipulating it, and this behaviour had to stop. 

Summa Summarum, the Pope did all exactly as he wished without listening to the bishops every time he could (preliminary relatio, appointment of the “little pigs”, decision to keep paragraphs that had been excised), and promptly looking for cover every time he could not (the second relatio in most paragraphs, and the posturing as the “wise mediator between truth and heresy” in the final speech). 

There is a fifth issue, on which I must offer a most optimistic outlook than the two excellent men in the video.

Yes, there will now be “discussions” about sodomy, & Co. But I can’t see how this discussion can be silenced if the Pope not only does not silence it (which Burke invited him to do, unheeded; I think we will hear more about this), but rams it down the throat of the Church.

And if discussion (scandalous! obscene!) must be had, then better from a position of clear defeat for the Modernist position, and clear approval of the Catholic position; a Catholic position which the bishops will take care to have well explained to their own sheep, lest they themselves, the bishops, get grilled next year at the Synod 2015, and then stoned in public by the homosexual minions of Francis. A man who, as we have already seen in the case of the FFI, “does” persecution and revenge with reckless abandon. 

Yes, the dissenters will dissent. But this they would have done anyway. It is much better that they open their mouth as dissenters, and are seen to be so. All the others (which means by the way: the overwhelming majority in Africa and Asia) will discuss, get very angry at the Modernists, and go to the 2015 synod better prepared, and with well-sharpened swords.

And what will Francis do? Leave African or Asian bishops out? All hell would break loose. What then? Impose silence and censorship again? Don’t make me laugh. He caved in once to avoid a public and unprecedented humiliation, he would do it thirty more times.

This here is a Jesuit. His motto could be “In defeat, cowardice. In victory, revenge!”. 

Do you want to know what I think? Francis had his moment, and he lost bad. He made a surprise bid for Russia, and was stopped at the outskirts of Moscow. The surprise attack has failed, and he now has in front of him an army so overwhelming – if they only want to fight –  that there is no way he can reverse the destiny of the battle, unless it is for the incompetence and cowardice of his opponent.

If you ask me (warning! Born optimist!) this battle is not for Francis to win. It is only for the the Bishops (and Catholicism) to lose.  But Francis is now a lame duck. The world has seen it already, and it is coming to terms with it. The Newsweek article I have already linked to is an example of a new reality slowly starting to “sink in”.        

A year of battle is before us. 

But the events of last week showed that ours is, by far, the better army.

If we (and the Bishops and Cardinals) do not lose faith and go on pounding – and several of them have done it already, and new ones are coming in, like the very late Cardinal Piacenza – Francis and his little troop of heretics will be exposed as a bunch of heretic morons.

At that point Francis will leave the battle, and let others have the blame.

Required Viewing: “The Remnant” Strikes Back

My dear readers,

if you ask me, and if you have any trust in your humble correspondent, the video below (hat tip to reader scarygoat61) is required viewing. 

So much so, that I will post this without further comment, and will make my considerations (for anyone who will want to do it; but you don’t have to, as the video is good enough) in another post, that will assume this video has been seen. 

There are moments when I think that we can behold victory not (hopefully) only on the day we die, but in our lifetime. This is one of these moments. The war will be hard, but if I look at the first major battle I start to think it is Axis against Allies here. Which, patriotic as your truly is, could only have only one outcome since 7 December 1941.

Enjoy the video.  

Newsweek Reveals: Francis Was A Shameless, Stunning Liar All His Life

From the new, very tasty* Newsweek article about Francis:

But the family was not a place of total concord. His mother was angry when she found that he was not studying medicine, as she had been told, but theology.

“I didn’t lie to you,” the future Jesuit responded with the casuistry for which his order has been notorious. “I’m studying medicine – but medicine of the soul.”

What lie.

What hypocrisy after the lie!

What Jesuitism!!

TMAHICH was an entire lifetime in the making. He could not have achieved his current level of hypocrisy in any other way.

This is, by the way, the man who complains about casuistry.

The Most Astonishing Hypocrite In Church History.

The Most Astonishing Hypocrite In Church History.

The Most Astonishing Hypocrite In Church History.

Mundabor

* there is another predictable bomb about Mass attendance; already picked up by the Press.

 

 

Another Bishop In Francis’ Gunsight

Here, Monsignor Ricca is tenderly saying thanks to Francis for his openness to sodomites.

 

 

 

Not-so-strangely, we are informed that another conservative bishop, Oliveri from Albenga-Imperia, is now being targeted by the Unholy Father. The Bishop is known for the following:

1. Friendliness to the FFI.

2. Successful seminary, with 10% of the faithful in Liguria but more than 50% of Seminarians, attracting them from outer dioceses because of the quality of the formation.

3. First Pontifical Mass celebrated by a Bishop in communion with Rome in the Traditional Rite after Summorum Pontificum.

A rather successful Bishop, then, as V II bishops go; but one with two unforgivable traits in the mind of Francis: Catholic, and friend of Catholic Friars.

As already seen in Paraguay with bishop Lovieres Plano, the accusation that seems to be floated is of a certain leniency in welcoming priests with a past of (accusation of) misconduct. Accusations which in both cases are, mind, not personal accusations and are, therefore, no accusations at all, but merely excuses.

Yours truly is frankly getting tired with this. I reflect that:

1. The Church who is oh so welcoming of every freakin' pervert should be also welcoming of every priest seen as fit to do his job. If a priest is seen as not fit to do his job, he should be defrocked in Rome, instead of being used later for Papal purges. As Francis would say: do they go around with the “misconduct” ID card? A bishop will look at the circumstances and make a decision. If he is a good bishop – conservative bishops generally are – he will make honest decisions to the best of his ability. To throw the cross on them afterwards is disingenuous and hypocritical, because on average the favela-friendly bishop must score much worse.

Besides, if this is the standard John Paul II should have been posthumously condemned already, much less beatified and canonised.

2. Last time I looked, 95% of the priests accused of misconduct against children were historically found innocent. I do not know how things stand for other accusations; still, I can't avoid to suspect that it is exactly this 95% that will be now used – perhaps not here, as Oliveri has been bishop a quarter of a century already, which is a lot of apples among which Francis can pick the bad ones, but elsewhere – to throw around accusations against bishops.

3. Once again, a Bishop with a very successful, Catholic Seminary is being targeted. This also starts to become extremely transparent.

4. Once again, Francis goes Jack “Shining” Nicholson on the friends of the FFI, whom he clearly sees as his enemies.

—–

Please do not say “oh, but the bishop has made mistakes!” Pretty much everyone makes mistakes, and those of Bergoglio, Kasper, Nichols, Marx, & Co. would have been, when Christianity was taken seriously, amply sufficient to burn them. Nor has Cardinal Danneels, one of the most scandalous examples of “bishop covering up for pedophile priests”, suffered so very much during this Pontificate. The tale of Francis The Enemy Of Perverted Priests just does not work: look under whose roofs he lives!

—–

Francis is here, very probably, merely being his usual self: a petty, vindictive old man who hates Catholics and Catholicism. He is now angry at the disobedience of his own bishops – who have chosen, in brutal contrast to Michael Voris, to obey Christ instead – and wants to take his little revenge on one of the bishops on his certainly well-nourished black list.

Bad luck to him. But I want to see how he can get rid of many of his enemies in this way without causing an uproar that will let the Synod look like a kindergarten squabble; and he needs to get rid of thousands of them, with every bishop he targets increasing the level of resentment from his bishop.

At some point – preferably, very preferably, now – the bishops will have to stand up again and publicly denounce the persecution of sound Catholic bishops and the intimidation of all the others. This Pope can only be stopped by a very public uproar, led by prestigious Cardinals or Archbishops, openly warning from this man's not only methods, but mentality. If he is left unchecked he will start deposing Catholic bishops right and left, and appoint the likes of Cupich in their stead, until he has changed the very perception of the Catholic Church all over the planet. And whilst he will never be able to change any point of doctrine – nor, I think, very willing to try again after the recent experiences, at least ias long as the Bishops stay strong – he will certainly be able to change a lot in the perception. He is doing it already, albeit for the moment with the extremely questionable and certainly unwanted result of being seen as far on the liberal/left/dissenting side of his own bishops.

At one bishop a week he will go nowhere. But even at this pace, it won't be long before another huge outcries rises from the very roots of Catholicism. Does he realise this? Did he only want to punish another bishop with two Bergoglian mortal sins (the FFI, and the Catholic seminary), or what he has in mind is a slow but constant persecution of all strong bishops pour encourager les autres?

We shall see.

I suggest to the Bishop that they prepare for battle. Possibly starting from now.

M

 

 

A Positive Effect Of Last Week’s Chaos

Paul VI's beatification in pictures

In another amusing development, the Beatification of Paul VI has been almost ignored in the uproar caused by last week's events.

Think of it: it is clear that Pope Paul's Beatification was planned as the final apotheosis of the Great Push Towards Hell. On the day Francis gloriously proclaims a New Religion for our time, his Glorious Predecessor, the man who saw the beginning of this Glorious Push brought to completion in the Council, is also remembered. Look, world, how the Spirit is Guiding them both!

No doubt, Stage I of the Revolution had to be celebrated in the same day as Stage II made its formal, triumphal appearance in the world. The Synod Fathers would have been praised as the new and more daring generation of Council Fathers, building what they once started to new, breathtaking heights. Francis, the Humble Innovator, would have stood there in front of the entire planet, hailed by atheist, perverts, dissenters, and assorted enemies of the Church as he says to those he has just betrayed that he is merely continuing on the path of the V II “tradition”. By beatifying Paul in death, he would have beatified himself in life.

It wasn't to be. A burning defeat is what TMAHICH got instead. The final address to the Bishops had to be hastely rewritten, trying to mask Francis' complicity with the heretics – actually: Francis' steering of the heresy – and attempting to paint him as the good old uncle, saying “tut-tut” to both Traditionalists and Heretics in that oh so gentle, amiable way of his when he is not massacring some beautiful Catholic order.

In all this mess, Pope Paul was as irrelevant in death as he was in life. A fitting destiny for the man who refused to stop the already clear drive towards betrayal, and allowed all this madness to start in earnest.

Two words on this beatification (Paul does not deserve better) to close. I do not know if the man is in hell, and it is to be hoped he saved his sorry Modernist head in the end. He certainly got the grace of a slow death with the sacraments and abundant time to repent, so one can only hope he made the most of it. Still, Beatifications are not binding for Catholics. Therefore, Yours Truly will hold this beatification to be the same as everything Francis does:

Rubbish.

M

 

 

Only Doormats And Satan Welcome All

Got to love this carpet: "come in" or "go away"...

Got to love this carpet: “come in” or “go away”…

I am already sick and tired of the new buzzword chosen by Satan to attack the Church and Her Sacraments: the concept of “welcome”.

You welcome someone in your house because you think it safe and sensible to do so. You wouldn’t say “welcome” to any violent drunkard, rapist or pedophile; or robber, thief, fraudster.

“Knock, knock”

“Who is it?”

“Good morning, ma’am. I am a rapist. I ask to be welcomed in your hospitable home, because I feel very much excluded. Your doormat says ‘all welcome'; so will you open, please….”

What do you think: will the woman open? Me neither… She will, actually, rather call the Police.

Exactly the same – though on a much graver scale – happens with the Church whenever there is a call to “welcome” people who bring with them not conversion, but the pride of their vices, and the arrogant demand not only to continue the scandal, but also to be allowed to “be welcomed” in the House of the Lord.

I say “much worse” because – as every sound Catholic will realise after three seconds of reflection – the things of God are infinitely more important than the mortal bodies of men, and the sullying of His house with heretical and satanic praxis and widespread sacrilege is infinitely worse than any number of rapes and murders one may care to imagine; a concept, this, once well planted in every Catholic mind, but now obviously disappeared from the consciousness of many of them; of people whose religion is, to all intents and purposes, made entirely so satisfy man, and uncaring of insulting God.

No, the woman will not allow the rapist to get in. Her “welcome” is meant for those, and only for those, fit to enter her home.

But the House of the Lord, the Holy Church, should be sullied with every kind of scandal and blasphemy, with those who want to rape her to satisfy their desires, so that everyone feels “welcoming”. Cue the obese female blogger, and the saltless priest – homosexual, it is purported; I report the rumour just because the readers have the right to know, considering what he goes around saying – rolling a huge doormat to every scandalous adulterer, concubine and pervert on the planet.

Only doormats welcome all. Literally and figuratively.

Be a sissified doormat and don’t be surprised if, one day, you will stand in line near some blogger with Compulsive Gluttoning Disorder, about to enter the gates of hell, and going over a huge doormat carrying the following words:

Welcome.

M

Canada Welcomes The “Religion Of Peace”

Canada's well-deserved future.



Two attacks of Islamist matrix in two dayS: one in Montreal and the other, far graver, in Ottawa, striking at the very heart of Canadian institutions.

One may say that these are isolated cases of madmen, but I frankly think those who lull themselves in such thinking are just as mad, if perhaps a tad more lucid. The maddest of political correctness must be the Mayor of Ottawa, talking of “causes not yet fully understood” when even his daughter's hamster knows.

We must wake up, smell the coffee, and realise that the indiscriminate import of Islam, and the politically correct way it was allowed to spread like a cancer, has created a situation and a climate that will make such attacks more frequent in the future, everywhere in the stupid, effeminate West.

The stupid, effeminate West got what it deserved. It found it cool to play “multicultural” and “inclusive”; now it will have to live with the consequences of its own stupidity. Canada, say hello to the Religion of Peace. I hope you liked the appetiser, because the main course is coming.

It is only a matter of time until a handful of fanatics manage to get inside a national or regional Parliament and massacre a couple of dozen elected members of that assembly.

At that point, perhaps, the West will finally wake up.

Perhaps.

M

 

St. Augustine: Unwelcoming, Judgmental, No Room For Love

Homophobis hater: St Augustine of Hippo.

Homophobic hater: St Augustine of Hippo.

The priest writing on Patheos has some meowing about how (and whether) to “welcome” “the gays”.
He seems not to like the idea very much, though you have to get to the end of the blog post, and past the vomit-inducing photo, to understand it; but then he likes “the gays” enough to put two sodomites in his above-mentioned photo, in one of those disgusting poses so beloved from the homo propaganda to give perverts an air of youth and normality. He also says that to him “the gays” are those who acts on their perversion, because the word “sodomite” is probably taboo at Patheos, and makes sodomites feel “unwelcome”.
So much for Patheos bloggers; and this one is probably the least worst most of the time.
Mundabor’s tip? Avoid. 
In general, one wonders how a priest not bent (ha!) straight for hell can think of any “greet” to give to “the gays” and then deal with the perversion at hand in a halfway effective way. If I want to persuade a pedophile that what he does is evil and will lead him straight to hell, there aren’t many nice words about pedophilia I can say to him beforehand. Repentant sinners are always welcome; scandalous and activist perverts who do not want to reform themselves, but want to pervert the Church are asked, like the famous dogs, to stay out.    
Still, let us help the Patheos’ priest blogger. Let us suggest a charitable welcome to “the gays”. Which we will, of course, charitably call Sodomites. Try this:  
“Sins against nature, therefore, like the sin of Sodom, are abominable and deserve punishment whenever and wherever they are committed. If all nations committed them, all alike would be held guilty of the same charge in God’s law”. (The Confessions, c. III, p. 8).

Mundabor

(Hat tip: Roberto de Mattei via Rorate Caeli)

 

Francis’ Next Move And The Catholic D-Day: A Reflection

Heresy Beach under attack. Thursday, 16 October 2014.

 

 

After the great debacle of last week – denied by some of the Liberals and, obviously, by all the Pollyannas – the question can be posed of what will Francis do next. Then we can speculate of what will happen after that. Allow me to say how I see it.

Broadly speaking, it seems to me that he has the following options.

1. Resign and wheelchair off to Argentina.

If Francis sees his future as Pope as bleak, he could make an extreme gesture and simply resign. He would instantly acquire the status of Best Pope Evah by those whose popularity he is courting: Western Non-Catholics of all stripes.

A kind of Loser Cincinnatus, he would go back to his cobbler, his newspaper agent and his beloved slum trannies. An aura of non-judgmental, Dalai Lama-like mock sainthood would follow him everywhere. Atheist, Jews, Witches, Homos, Adulterers, Concubines and unrepentant sinners of all sort would erect a huge monument to the Revolutionary Pope. Whilst I am sure he enjoys the immense apartment, the company of perverts, the helicopter and the power, what he loves most is himself and his own popularity. This would, therefore, be an option if not immediately, perhaps if he gets another thrashing or two. Alas, I doubt that his outlook is so bleak, or that he may see it that way. Therefore, this one looks improbable at least for now.

2. Adapt to the role as Pope, and say farewell to the Revolution

This Pope loves his popularity above all. It is very questionable whether he would choose to become the hate figure of Catholics in life and for generations to come. May he hate Catholics, I think he hates mass unpopularity more. A Pope not followed by his own is a joke of a Pope no matter how many perverts love him, and I am sure that much he understands well.

If we are lucky, he could decide that this is the end of the revolutionary experiment, and he has neither the age nor the strength to really roll the dice. Therefore, he could avoid the Nuclear Option and simply be content with being Pope Stupid, rather than Pope Heretic. A massive conflict could see him even defrocked. He is, in this scenario, too much of a Jesuit to risk that.

This is, I think, also an unlikely scenario. But it could become far more realistic if Francis gets another couple of humiliations like last week’s one. He is a Jesuit after all, which means: weak with the strong, always ready to swim with the tide, and with no shame at all.

3. Continue as now, but more guardedly and carefully.

In this scenario, Francis learns that he has sent his tanks in the open field and they have been massacred. He also understands further open defiance will yield the same results. Therefore, he decides it’s guerrilla time.

Removal of as many uncomfortable bishops as he can without risking open backlash; appointment of liberals and friends of perverts (or perverts) as bishops, but not too obvious ones; continued “off-the-cuff” heresies, but mixed with more traditional messages.

This, I think the most probable scenario. The trouble with that (for him) is that Francis does not have the time to work slowly on his project and see it triumph in, say, twenty years. There are thousands of bishops, a jungle of religious orders, many seminaries are now producing decent priests, and Traditionalism has never been so strong in 50 years. Look at Summorum Pontificum advancing as the old… Jesuits fill the hospices. This is a guerrilla that is also a race against the time. If he tries to be Gorbachev, chances are he’ll end up like him. The Church is, like the Soviet Union, a huge apparatus that (leaving the Holy Ghost aside) a heretic can’t reshape as he pleaseth. Francis’ guerrilla will make damages, but the Church will bear them all right, and rectify them in time when TMAHICH is gone.

4. The Extreme Destroyer

Francis decides that enough is enough, and sets up to make a massacre; remaining as much under cover as he can, whilst still being the Puppetmaster.

An example of this could be the already ventilated and now resuscitated proposal of factually castrating the CDF and leave the Bishops’ Conferences free to decide as much as possible, even in “doctrinal” matters.

The problem with this is, if you ask me, that it will never work. The principle that the praxis must adhere to the doctrine has just been convincingly reaffirmed. I am unable to see how Cardinal Napier or Burke would accept communion for adulterers provided it is limited to some Western Countries. There is, actually, every reason to believe this “doctrinal anarchy” would equate to the dismembering of the very Body of the Church, an outcome that only the most fanatical Kasperites will support.

It is not possible to have home-made Catholicism. The word itself decries this possibility as absurd. I may be the eternal optimist, but I think that if Francis were to try something like that, he would end up under an orthodox truck in no time, and at that point he would be a seriously lame duck.

The breaking of taboos is a two-way street. Next time, the criticism will be faster, more spread, and more explicit. Look at the immense status of people like Cardinal Burke now. If they push, It’s “Pope Over Board”!

Think of this: Francis has already been tested, and he has lost. Has he gone for the all-out confrontation? No. Are the Bishops and Cardinals stupid, that they do not know that he will seek a rematch, and revenge? No. Is he strong enough to brave them? Come on, he’s a Jesuit. He did not have the balls last week, will he grow a pair at (almost) Seventy Nine?

Call me the eternal optimist, but I don’t think he can. This here just has no guts for it, or we would have known already. In my eyes, he rather runs the risk of becoming a pathetic figure, torn between the armchair “Che” and the reality of an abysmally bad soldiery.

He was tested, and was found wanting.

——

You can say what you want of “Che” Guevara (and whatever you say, I will say worse), but he certainly had no fear to put all at risk, and to accept frightful odds uncaring of consequences.

A “Che”, this Pope is not. He has all the hate of Che Guevara, but none of the balls.

Whenever he finds an army of Catholics close the ranks against him, he will always choose the armchair rather than the jungle. As he did last Thursday. Of course, he will need to find this Army or he will walk all over Catholicism. Of course, a losing Wehrmacht still is the Wehrmacht! But with God’s Grace and our prayers, and if the Spirit of the Synod continues – and I can’t see why not – I can’t see how he can win.

——

We live in extremely worrying, volatile, heretical times. I am aware that this prediction may prove completely wrong. But I can only write on this blog to the best I can observe, and with the most realistic reasoning I can extract from these observations.

TMAHICH isn’t the Antichrist, and he has already failed abysmally even as apprentice False Prophet. Heck, not even his Bishops esteem him, and not very many seem to fear him.

I see last Thursday as a Catholic D-Day. Destination: Berlin. Yes, the army opposing us is still frightfully strong. Yes, there is no doubt savage fighting might be in store. Yes, complacency now would be fatal. But not ten months after D-Day, Hitler was dead and Nazism in his last gasps. I do not think very many thought it could be so fast.

I dare to forecast, here, how this man will be seen after he’s gone: as a stupid, evil, dirty old man who wanted to remake the Church in his own (stupid, evil, and dirty) image, got a hammer on his teeth a couple of times too much, and thought better of it.

 

Mundabor 

 

“Vorisgate”: Why Writing Letters Is Not The Answer.

Originally posted on Mundabor's Blog:

Letter-to-Santa-Printable

The arguments in defence of the indefensible become more and more outlandish. I will leave all the side noise (I doubt Thomas More would have made a TV sender “where lies and falsehoods are trapped and exposed”, either…; but seriously, I won’t waste my time with that) on the side, and address one question:

should we limit ourselves to writing letters to the Pope? 

No, we shouldn’t.

Firstly, the problem of a Pope giving scandal in public is only in a secondary and accessory manner the problem of the salvation of the Pope’s soul. It is in the first line a problem for the millions of souls who are confused by his outlandish or heretical statements. The Pope is one soul, but the souls who are endangered are millions. As we are taught that every soul has infinite value and dignity, there is no reason whatsoever to sacrifice one individual…

View original 844 more words

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,019 other followers

%d bloggers like this: